Comments on: Methodists And The Use Of Social Media

By: More On Methodists And Social Media « Big Circumstance

More On Methodists And Social Media « Big Circumstance — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:53:36 +0000

[...] Pete Phillips, Richard Hall, social media, Steve Jones, Toby Scott by Dave Faulkner The debate I mentioned on Tuesday continues. To mention [...]

By: How well did the Civil Service Blogger Code work – 18 months on? | The Wardman Wire

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:31:58 +0000

[...] Bible, with contributions by – amongst others – connexions, Fat Prophet, Steve Jones, Big Circumstance and Methodist Preacher . I’ll aim blog about the Methodist process next week, but in short [...]

By: Dave Faulkner

Dave Faulkner — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:44:49 +0000

Yes, Richard, I hope some good comes out of this week’s events. I also take note of Dave Perry’s reassuring comment in the conversation on your post. I respect Dave’s opinion, both for the kind of person he is and as someone with a foot in both camps. I do wonder whether there are people who have been hurt on both sides of the discussion.

By: Dave Faulkner

Dave Faulkner — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:43:02 +0000

That would be good, Dave. As I said, I’m not necessarily assuming sinister motives – I don’t think it’s Christian to do that of our sisters and brothers – but I have an inquisitive mind.

By: Richard Hall

Richard Hall — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:26:09 +0000

I can’t argue with that, Dave. I’d intended to wait to find out what Council decided before blogging about this paper, but I also felt that the way it had been represented by others needed a response. But I hope the Council will continue to offer its papers in this way as an encouragement to wider debate. I hadn’t thought of using the Council’s agenda as a source of blogposts before, but when you think of the range of issues that it will deal with there are some rich pickings there.

I suspect that if bloggers were doing this more regularly, the wider church would be in much closer touch with the Council than it currently is. Then the game really will have changed.

By: DaveW

DaveW — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 08:32:26 +0000

I agree that the practice of publishing Methodist Council papers on the web has gone through a step change this week. In my very limited experience I don’t think any other council paper has got this much attention. Not surprising really the blogging world is quite self obsessed

I imagine that some reflection on this process will be done.

By: Dave Faulkner

Dave Faulkner — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 07:14:55 +0000

Fair distinctions, Dave, I’m just saying that publishing on the web what began as a private paper changes the nature of things, and I don’t think that’s been understood. That isn’t necessarily sinister, but maybe there is a lack of understanding that different media require different methods.

By: DaveW

DaveW — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:09:12 +0000

Dave,

“I have consulted a number of authorities on this subject’, I will not be respected. I will be expected to note who I consulted in the bibliography and/or the footnotes.”

I think what you have there is simply different views of reflection processes. I suspect people are coming from three different directions:

1. Private conferring (as in traditionally what has happened at Methodist Council and SRC). You confer and deliberate and then present your decisions. The whole team supports the final decision and confidentiality is kept about what people said in the process. It is not a process I am very used to but it is the traditional one within Methodism for these meetings and it is the one that has been followed in the preparation of this paper (and all the others before Council).

2. Academic referencing. What you refer to in your comment about expectations of writing in a journal. Required for an academic paper but this is not that. Maybe in an ideal world there would be academic papers first and then governance conferring to decide what to do about it.

3. Internet openness. The way the internet has worked out things from the beginning. Discussion open to everyone with people making their case, responding to each other and reaching a consensus. The whole debate available for all who have the time to read it. Easier with technical issues than with political (compare discussions about the development of the Atom Feed format with pages about Israel on Wikipedia).

Bloggers want method 3. I can understand that but:

a) Would we have got a paper for the February Council meeting that way? I am not convinced.

b) Would we have been able to get something that non bloggers would be happy with? They would have been excluded from the “open” discussion. We might have got something they feel is as useless as self regulation of banks.

By: Dave Faulkner

Dave Faulkner — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:55:37 +0000

I think what I was trying to say late last night is that I understand some people being suspicious (even if I find David H’s language needlessly provocative). As I said, I’m with you largely on the content of the paper – it’s generally fine, and applies what we would expect in terms of our confidentiality ethic. Also, I might add, as an internal document, it’s fine.

However, the fact of its publication on the web changes things, and opens it to inevitable questions of public scrutiny. If I write a public piece such as a journal article, as I occasionally do, and just say, ‘I have consulted a number of authorities on this subject’, I will not be respected. I will be expected to note who I consulted in the bibliography and/or the footnotes. I’m looking for that kind of backup. I don’t think Connexion have realised that the otherwise very helpful practice of publishing Methodist Council papers on the website has implications for how they communicate. The game has changed.

By: Richard Hall

Richard Hall — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 23:43:49 +0000

I’m afraid I don’t understand the transparency issue. If this was a paper claiming to represent the views of Methodist bloggers I’d be with you, but as it stands it should be judged according to what it says. Certainly I don’t see the need for suspicion.

Of course, times have changed. But the comment about the Methodist Recorder ‘moderating’ the conversation on its letter pages is relevant: most bloggers also moderate the comments that appear on their sites to a greater or lesser extent — and those that don’t, should!